December 2, 2005

The pocket square was a particularly distracting flourish. Paired with a tie, a pocket square tends to make a man look more formally attired. But without that accompaniment, it can look almost jaunty and rakish -- like Sinatra or Dino in Vegas.

Hussein's style choice throws the viewer off balance. Is his modest paean to the Flamingo a simple reflection of his hair-dyeing, gold-leaf-loving, frightful vanity? Or has he decided to beat the "occupiers" from within their own system? Take it over, or mock it?

I am a local subscriber to the WP. Robin is an out of control columnist that tries to read lots of politics into fashion statements.

My favorite was her critique of the Robert's children at the appointment announcement in the WH. For those of you who have forgotten, that is the one where John Jr was doing the dancing and Mom and older sister were looking askance. Robin made a huge deal of complaining about the classic and overdressed kids. My view and those of many were that the kids were dressed in what used to be called :Sunday Best".. a totally appropriate dress for appearing as a 4 YO at the WH IMHO.

How is a pocket square sans tie "American style?" I've never in my life seen any man wear a suit with pocket square and no tie. Now, sportcoat with pocket square but no tie, sure. I've done that myself on occasion, because I am horribly affected. And I've even seen people in suits with no ties, though that was in Japan and Korea, not the US. But "American style" would be showing up in jeans and a tailored blazer or something, wouldn't it? I suppose there may be some rarefied subsection of American society for which a suit without a tie but with a pocket square is normal, but I've never come across it.

Anyhow, he needs an ascot to complete the look. An ascot, and a buttonhole. It will go so well with that one picture where he's kitted out in hunting gear (complete with a little hat -- a trilby, maybe?) brandishing his rifle.

So forgive me if this is a little off-topic, but when I clicked to the Washington Post story, I see there is a link back to the Althouse Blog. (I'm new to the blogosphere and this is the first time I've seen a MSM paper do this.) I'm wondering about this relationship.

MSM posts a story; Althouse blogs; MSM links back to the blog on the original story. I guess its good in a way because the Washington Post is tipping its cap to you Ann. However, from what I've perceived about some blogger attitudes towards the MSM, maybe the Washington Post linking back to you is pulling you into the stream a little too much.

The fourth layer of back and forth is that now someone (me) is posting about the MSM's link back to Althouse.

Is the Washington Post co-opting blogs or is this just an example of the dynamic environment that is the Internet?

PWS: WaPo has that set up automatically through Techorati. It does reward bloggers for blogging about them, but it doesn't screen for positive or negative. I think it's nicely blog-friendly of them. It gives them a nice jump on the NYT, which stymies us with TimesSelect and links that die.

After Givhan's Roberts & Family column was published I remember reading someone who said something to the effect: "What the Hell does she know? Anyone who was married to Mike Tyson..." and I forget the rest. But it was a real zinger.

And belatedly, DS, thanks for your input on my "Plow their fields with salt" comment in another thread. That was exactly what I meant.